Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

karenf, those donations, are they from abramoff directly? or from the tribe? i think the distinction is muy importante.

Posted by jen on January 6, 2006 at 12:41 AM

What's weird about those donations, IMO, is looking at HOW MUCH some of these individuals donated to charity after Abramoff was indicted. Most were very SMALL amounts of money (Like $900 to about $3,000). Huge discrepancy there. Something is missing in the story.

Posted by RoseZ on January 6, 2006 at 12:46 AM

personally, i'd like it if all lobbyist money were made illegal. i hope this scandal gets us closer to that.

most of those big donations came from the Indian tribe, not Abramoff or his wife. every cent from that tribe is not tainted because of Abramoff. let's make sure the distinction is made. or are we just going to play into the repugs hands on this?

Posted by jen on January 6, 2006 at 12:51 AM

Top 20 - includes both parties, I'm afraid...

That is false, both parties took money from the tribes, not from Abramoff.

"It is not our job to seek peaceful coexistence with the Left. Our job is to remove them from power permanently."

- Jack A. Abramoff

All of official Washington is at this moment waiting with bated breath for the avalanche. Jack Abramoff, the disgraced super-lobbyist, has made a plea agreement in the massive prosecution against him and his cronies. Every talking head who has spoken on the subject has stated bluntly that the fallout from this plea deal will almost certainly result in the largest scandal to hit the capital in decades.

The questions, of course, are straightforward: Who is involved? Who took money from this guy? Who is on his pad? Most significantly, who did Abramoff name when he decided to sing to the prosecutors?

Republicans, nervous about the bad noise to come, have attempted to paint this as an equal-opportunity crime. To wit, the Democrats are into Abramoff as deeply as the GOP. The facts, however, do not bear this out. According to campaign donation information gathered by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, the following officeholders and candidates have received political donations from Abramoff since 2000:

Notice anything similar? Each and every name listed, each and every PAC, has an (R) after it. The Center for Responsive Politics does not have one Democrat - not one - listed as having received a donation from Jack Abramoff. The amounts given to the Republicans listed above amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In extremis, Republicans have taken to bandying about the name of Byron Dorgan, Democratic Senator from North Dakota, as evidence that this Abramoff thing is a two-party scandal. Dorgan received $67,000 from Native American tribes represented by Abramoff - not from Abramoff himself - and has since returned the money. Furthermore, he got the money before the tribes had any dealings with Abramoff. In short, Dorgan's so-called involvement in the matter is a red herring.

As for Mr. Bush, he has given the Abramoff money he received to charity, according to the White House. DNC Chairman Howard Dean pegged the total amount Bush received from Abramoff at $100,000. Abramoff attended three Hannukah receptions at the Bush White House - Hannukah? What happened to fighting the War on Christmas? - but Bush denies knowing him. "The president does not know him and does not recall meeting him," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "It is possible that he could have met him at a holiday reception or some other widely attended event."

Heh. Sounds like what we heard from Bush about Kenny "Boy" Lay.

It is going to be an interesting year.

Posted by jen on January 6, 2006 at 12:54 AM

Jen, the dollars look like a combination of donations from Abramoff, as well as the contributions he told the tribe's to make to Congress persons in order to bribe them, according to the Washington Post caption. Still researching....

Posted by KarenF on January 6, 2006 at 12:55 AM

Let's beware of the red herrings people!

Posted by jen on January 6, 2006 at 12:55 AM

But Abramoff's largely tribal clients had a more bipartisan approach to their giving. Their contributions included more than $34,000 to Sen. Patty Murray, and smaller donations to Sen. Maria Cantwell and three other Washington Democratic congressmen, records analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics show. The center is a nonpartisan research group that tracks money in politics.

It is unclear, however, how much — if any — of this money was donated at the direction of Abramoff, who pleaded guilty this week to fraud and corruption charges. All the Washington Democrats who received the tribal money say they were never approached by Abramoff to do any favors for his clients and do not plan to return any of the donations.

"The contributions have come directly from the tribes to Sen. Murray," said Alex Glass, the senator's spokeswoman. "She's never had any contact with Abramoff."

Posted by fade2bluz on January 6, 2006 at 12:57 AM

I don't trust Wapo any more than I trust NYTimes or CNN or any of the so-called MSM. So I am not convinced by that chart. (let me just say that i don't think all dems are lily white either, but i'm not ready to just lay down and assume the position that in this instance they are in bed with abramoff just because the gop and msm want us to. look at the timing of the donations, and so forth. get me?) but yes, time will tell. i'm not conceding shit though until it's proven to me. if the shoe was on the other foot, what do you think the Repugs would be doing? Fighting like hell, and that is what we need to do too. We're too quick to say, yes, we're bad too, blahblahblah. (By the way, this is not aimed at any of you guys, just a general rant. which obviously is rooted in my need to go to sleep!)

Remember the SwiftBoats? Hello? This is a REPUBLICAN SCANDAL. There is a huge difference between the tribal donations and jack-off's. He wanted to destroy the Democratic party, people. Please, don't play into their propaganda machine. Please.

Posted by fade2bluz on January 6, 2006 at 01:01 AM

G'night Jen.

I find the whole Abramoff thing so confusing anyway. I read and reread things over and over trying to get it all to gel.

And how come the whole issue of that Maniasas (sp) Island crap Abramoff was involved in isn't in any of this? I wish I still had my Newsweek that talked about that whole mess.

Posted by RoseZ on January 6, 2006 at 01:04 AM

It is going to be an interesting year.

Posted by jen on January 6, 2006 at 12:54 AM

Thank you, Jen. This cannot, cannot, cannot continue to spread unchallenged. We have got to be prepared for their smear campaigns. It's not a new thing any more.

If the headlines that discuss the miners being found don't remind us about the "press" and credibility, nothing will. The media whores are doing more damage than any foreign influence. Thank heaven for Pitt and Josh Marshall, Kos, Atrios, etc.

Posted by fade2bluz on January 6, 2006 at 01:06 AM

There was a time when even the taint of immorality, unethical behavior, or illegal activity was enough for people of character to disavow, apologize, resign, or be fired from positions of power and status. Sure, it's certainly worse to be caught with a check from Abramoff himself, but I don't see how holding a check from Abramoff's clients exonerates the people holding the check. Clearly, the impression is that these are bribes. Clearly, the impression is that this is corruption. I'm sorry, but I'm party-blind to this one - Democratic corruption is just as sleazy to me as Republican corruption - ANY corruption destroys the fabric of our system.

Posted by KarenF on January 6, 2006 at 01:07 AM

then every check from every lobby group is a bribe and corrupt, Karen

Posted by jen on January 6, 2006 at 01:09 AM

EXACTLY!

Posted by KarenF on January 6, 2006 at 01:10 AM

anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree. This is a major blow to Republicans. Democrats will certainly once again fail to use this momentum to do anything on our own behalf. ANd round and round we go. wheeee! blech! byeee

Posted by KarenF on January 6, 2006 at 01:12 AM

Washington Posts "How Abramoff Spread the Wealth" - very good diagrams and stuff, showing the top 20 recipients - enlightening.

Posted by KarenF on January 6, 2006 at 12:38 AM

Karen, $4.7 million came from the TRIBES. Check the pie chart in the left hand corner. WaPo is a questionable source. They are not making the distinction. They know better.

Posted by fade2bluz on January 6, 2006 at 01:12 AM

the distinction needs to be made, was abramoff even the tribe's rep when the donation was made? did abramoff ask for anything from the recipient? i'm an idealist too but politics is filthy with money, and if you want to not accept any tainted money, then you better not accept ANY money. personally, i'd like it all REMOVED from the quotient, but until then, it is what it is. and it stinks to high heaven, and i don't give a shit what party took what, if they did deals with abramoff, hang em. but i'll be GODDAMNED if i'm going to just assume that the gop controlled media is telling the truth about who is truly culpable here and who is not.

anyway, goodnight all

Posted by jen on January 6, 2006 at 01:14 AM

So sorry. I was talking about Northern Mariana Islands scandal (sheish, I wasn't even close!). Link below snippet.

We turn now to Abramoff’s special relationship with the South Pacific island of Saipan and how it connects to his ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Saipan is an American territory in the South Pacific also known as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. In the mid-1990s Abramoff was on the payroll of Saipan officials aiming to stop legislation that would crack down on sweat shop conditions, which run rampant on the island. In 1997, Abramoff arranged a lavish trip to the island of Saipan for Delay.

Newsweek had a much more detailed article about it, but I don't recall when that issue came out.

Posted by RoseZ on January 6, 2006 at 01:14 AM

FOS - I'm here for a bit more, but I'm a bit tetchy now, so don't know what good company I'll be.

Rose, that Mariana Island thing just makes me want to scratch out the eyeballs of DeLay and Abramoff. I really, really hope that's the straw that destroys DeLay!!!

Posted by KarenF on January 6, 2006 at 01:16 AM

Rose Z

If you're interested, Josh Marshall has the most complete archive on the Abramoff story that I've seen. I don't watch t.v. I read this stuff like it's entertaining. It will, unfortunately, continue to result in the "both parties are corrupt" conclusion, which is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

You'll enjoy the time you spend studying this one as the ongoing story unfolds. Even the reporters writing about this one are having a hard time telling it. It does not make a good "sound bite", but it is going to be a LONG time before it's over.

Posted by fade2bluz on January 6, 2006 at 01:18 AM

Karen, I really don't think that the Mariana's island thing will be DeLay's straw. "We" don't care about the kind of nasty shit going down in other countries. It has nothing to do with us -- NOT!!

Posted by RoseZ on January 6, 2006 at 01:19 AM

Karen,If your still there.I agree that Democratic corruption is just as sleazy as Republican corruption and yes,any corruption destroys the fabric of our system.However,we cannot say for sure the details surrounding the acceptance of funds by the Democrats was motivated by corruptiuon.It's not like the cash was placed into their hands directly from Abramoff.He did not give the Democrats money on a "personal" level.From what I understand,the Democrats are not in any threat of being accused of doing something illegal.They gave the money back simply because "It doesn't look good" to keep it.You know, "Shun the very appearence of evil" sort of thing.Am I wrong?

Posted by FreedomOfSpeech on January 6, 2006 at 01:20 AM

Fade, thanks. I go to Josh's site everyday. Sometimes, though, it fails to hold my attention. But I think that's my own problem. I read best when I can highlight and write things in the margins so I can go back and digest more. The computer just isn't quite the place to do that!

But I will definitely go back and spend more time processing what Josh has written on it.

Posted by RoseZ on January 6, 2006 at 01:21 AM

Karen,

Delay's wife is more likely to be directly connected ...which is not to say Tommyboy won't be. From what i've seen, she's thick with involvement.

i hope it turns out to be true. keep your eye on josh marshall, because he's been breaking the news on this story consistently. he's very reliable.

Posted by fade2bluz on January 6, 2006 at 01:21 AM

Posted by FreedomOfSpeech on January 6, 2006 at 01:20 AM

ahhhhhhhhhhhckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!

we are NOT as corrupt as this party of thugs...dear lord, do the homework, please!!!!!

Posted by fade2bluz on January 6, 2006 at 01:22 AM

Tom Delay is against gambling while taking funds from a gambling concern, and now he is gambling that we will forgive him, for he is a saved and a religious man. Wow, politics has a weird way of explaining itself, because then DeLay says he is being attacked by Liberals. Wow, that must not say much about conservative Christians, if they support him.

Posted by dlesterpoet on January 6, 2006 at 01:23 AM

As I recall, a couple of other wives thick in the mix as well. I guess it's a good thing these are older couples. Otherwise, their offspring might have to be sent to foster care while their parents are in the slammer!

Posted by RoseZ on January 6, 2006 at 01:23 AM

Posted by fade2bluz ,

I hope it is true.I don't care much for that grinning rat-weasle hybrid.

Posted by FreedomOfSpeech on January 6, 2006 at 01:24 AM

Yes, but I believe that since this has broken they should exactly "shun the very appearance of evil." Hell, if I were in Congress, I would even come out and apologize that I had given even the slightest impression of being associated with the corruption and bribery, and then say what I intend to do to more carefully screen donations in the future - use it as an action plan to move forward. But, that's just me.

Posted by KarenF on January 6, 2006 at 01:25 AM

why is fade going nuts?

because this is how we disenfranchise voters! this is the reaction they WANT...the reThugs say that the dems saw the intelligence and voted for the war.

THEY DID NOT! and our Dems have been showing the damned letters they wrote years ago to prove it. has it stopped the story from spreading like wildfire? was there a war on christmas?

the republicans want people to continue to say, "both parties are corrupt"

it is an absolute truth that their culture of corruption is worse than NIXON. they are criminals. please, let's not get swiftboated again.